Pre marital Sex - Why or Why not?

And that time until death is a time that kind of matters, to some people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh, OK. I still don't have a camp.

Your continued questioning of why anyone would choose to have sex - and your clear bafflement on why anyone would want to, combined with your clear disdain of people who have sex for pleasure - paints a pretty clear picture. We know what you've told us; if you didn't want us to know, then not posting your opinions about sex on line might have been a good decision.

?? Why do you say that? Do you define "conservative" as "people who never do anything?" If so you're making some pretty silly assumptions.

Yes, there is a difference between "renouncing one's free will and hoping that things will work out according to one's desires anyway" and acknowledging uncertainty. For example, when I skydive I don't renounce any of my free will, and indeed bring my skill to bear on the problem of survival. And I have indeed succeeded around 6500 times so far. There is some uncertainty there - I could have some sort of heinous malfunction that I could not correct - but that risk is manageable.

It was not meant to be inclusive, just some examples.

What is your list of accomplishments to be had in life?

Nope. One can take as big a risk looking inside themselves as they find on the wall of a mountain.

You couldn't be more wrong there. Sharing one's life with someone else, along with all the risks and rewards that life entails, makes one a much richer person.

Agreed. And the more open one is to life's experiences of all kinds, the richer one is. Even when those experiences result in risk to themselves. Material circumstances come and go, and you cannot rely on them for happiness. What you DO with all those circumstances determines who you are and how happy life makes you.

No one is poorer than the miser who hoards his life, fearful of letting any of it escape him. By not wagering any of his life against the risks that life in the real world presents, he robs it of value - and then loses it anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's hard to talk with someone who doesn't have different nuances of expression.

Huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do not understand why you worry about what I think.
Try to state your opinion on the subject and tries to sustain these opinions with arguments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really need to stop putting words into my mouth.

You seem to.

True happiness: the kind of happiness that does not depend on harming oneself and others.

You still need to explain why this supposedly follows.

You criticize the miser, saying -

But you are doing the same thing. The ordinary miser does it with money or objects, you do it with experiences. And the two of you have the same fate: you both lose it all eventually.

Can you explain the outlook that is required for the above to follow?

What is it that a person must believe about themselves and the world in order to believe that the joy they get from an activity they participate in is greater than the risk of injury or death?

 

You said earlier that some personalities are pathological.

It's not about you in particular. I just want to understand why people think the way they think, why they act the way they do.

 

I have no need to. Your own words:

"If they . . . have sex when they don't want to have children, then they don't have much discernment."

"If after that, they sexually behave like so many others (ie. have sex when they don't want to have children), then they don't have much discernment."

I do not define conservative that way; I define it as someone who wants to preserve traditional societal constructs and mores. How do you define it?

Then you can find true happiness through sex. (That definition surely does not exclude sex, since I've done that quite a bit throughout my life without harming myself or others.)

Yes. And the wise man _spends_ the coin of his life by living it as much as possible; the miser does nothing, fearing to spend anything he does not need to, hoping to keep all those coins for as long as he can.

That their are worthwhile things in life that are worth the hard work, time and risk they entail. They must believe themselves competent and capable, that they will succeed where others might fail. They must believe that the world is full of amazing experiences and people, and that they only have a limited time to experience then all.

They are the sort of people who would rather be lying on their deathbed thinking about all of those experiences and people rather than "gee, I never really did anything with my life, and now it's over."

 

Those are statements of fact, not of disdain.

:shrug:

I tentatively agree, although we may differ vastly in what we mean by "traditional."
But it's not that important, because -

In that case, you are up against Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism, and several more.

You are implicitly claiming that you know better than Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism, and several more.

Should we believe that you are enlightened? That you have attained full devotional service to the Lord?

 

This incongruence explains a certain amount of the bitterness and envy, though it does not excuse the intent.

Then why attack when they answer your questions? :shrug:

As do you, ditto the rest.

 

What do you mean?
What incongruence, what bitterness, what envy, what intent?

If someone thinks think they can despise others, they better have damn good justifications for expecting others to just suck it up.

 

Really? Since when do Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism teach that happiness is to be found via non-procreative sex?

 

Claiming someone "has no discernment" is showing disdain. Someone could claim that you do not advocate sex for pleasure because don't have much courage. Would you consider them to be showing disdain towards you, or just stating facts?

I'm not up against anything. The Catholic Church preaches sex for pleasure when it is with your wife/husband; they actually encourage it. Heck, they even endorse natural family planning, a method of contraception used so couples can have sex for pleasure without having children as a result.

Uh, no. Indeed, since the Catholic Church endorses NFP, it sounds like you are the one who are claiming you know better than them. Why do you disagree with the Catholic Church on this?

OK. What are your justifications for despising people who have sex for pleasure?

 

You are.

There are several views on this within the Catholic Church.

More importantly, you have left out Buddhism and Hinduism.

I don't despise them.

But since they despise those who don't share their views, I expect that they - people like you - prove their superiority.

I have some understanding of Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism, and I want to see if you can really present something better than they do.

 

It is hard to follow your logic.
Why if some personalities are pathological then they cannot have different opinions ?

Before trying to understand the way of thinking of others, try to understand your own way of thinking and action.
(But I think we're off topic.)

 

Nope. As you admit below, the Catholic Church teaches Natural Family Planning as a way to have non-procreative sex.

From buddhism.about.com:

===========================
Specific Sexual Issues

Marriage. Most religions and moral codes of the West draw a clear, bright line around marriage. Sex inside the line is good. Sex outside the line is bad. Although monogamous marriage is the ideal, Buddhism generally takes the attitude that sex between two people who love each other is moral, whether they are married or not. On the other hand, sex within marriages can be abusive, and marriage doesn't make that abuse moral.
============================

So we're two for three on religions you listed - and those two are OK with non-procreative sex for pleasure. I am not very familiar with Hindusim so I'll give you that one.

But the question remains - why do you oppose the teachings of both Catholicism and Buddhism when it comes to non-procreative sex?

Nope.

If you want to have sex with as many guys as you can, go for it. That's fine.

If you want to have sex with as many women as you can, go for it. That's fine.

If you never want to have sex, that's also fine.

Can you say the same?

 

It does not teach that sex of any kind is the path to true happiness.
Catholic monks and nuns are supposed to be celibate, and they are not considered as excluded from true happiness.

Hardly a good source about Buddhism.
Quote a sutta from the Pali Canon where the Buddha endorses non-procreative sex as the path to true happiness.

Not at all.

You don't seem to be very familiar with either of the three.

You don't think that is "fine" - you think that people who have non-procreative sex have "richer, fuller" lives, and that those who don't have "poorer" lives.

So, for example, you believe that your life is richer and fuller than the Dalai Lama's.
Don't you find that at least a bit egregious?


In short, the issue is that your plan for happiness requires considerable material resources at least in terms of money, material objects, social contacts, good reputation, youth, health, beauty, each of your proposed activities requiring at least one item from this list.
As far as your plan for happiness is concerned, only people from the middle class and above can afford to act on it.

In contrast, Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism offer a plan for happiness that is cheap, readily available and actionable 24/7/365 for virtually everyone, regardless of their age, race, sex, socio-economical status, and health status.

And you still think your plan for happiness is better than theirs?

 

Surely they have different opinions. But if those opinions or personalities are pathologized, then we're not within a democracy or equality of opinions or personalities - as some of them are excluded from the onset.

To call some views or personalities "pathological," but nevertheless claim that whatever anyone does or thinks is "fine" - that is just disingenuous, to say the least.

 

Some, perhaps, small, limited and incomplete.

This is totally missing the boat, despite your' obvious pride in having read a Canon. Buddhism has grown and developed in the ~2600 years since Sid died.

As I recall, the classic work on human lovemaking - the Kama Sutra - is a Hindu text, and it is not just an instruction manual on how to make a baby.

Again, outside looking in and pronouncing judgements. :shrug:

 

Correct. It teaches that, between married couples, it is _one_ way to happiness.

Yes. And many monks fast - yet the ritual eating of the Eucharist is another part of the path to happiness of the Church.

So the question remains - why do you disagree with the Catholic Church on this? They say quite clearly that they encourage sex between married men and women and even provide a way for it to be non-procreative.

If that's the only difference between them, yes. But that's fine; they can do whatever they like.

Not at all. I suspect we do a great many other things, and that the Dalai Lama's life is rich in ways that mine is not. And again that's fine.

Nope. My plan for happiness doesn't require most of those things. But many are nice to have.

Great! Sounds like since I follow many of the tenets of Catholiism I'm getting the best of both worlds.

Since it's similar to Catholicism - no, ours are actually pretty similar.

So we are back to two questions which you seem unable to answer.

Why do you disagree on the Catholic Church's position in marital sex and natural family planning?

I am fine with the choices you make to have lots of sex, little sex or none at all - why aren't you OK when others make their own choices on that?

 

Does it also teach women how to be allright with having abortions and children they did not want?

 

It's not about being okay with what others do or not do; it's about checking whose stance is the superior one.